Racial Slur or Misunderstanding?

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by nick-o

Cliffs version:

Racist guy wrote a dumb magazine article 16 years ago

Racist guy still stands by it now

Everyone thinks racist guy is a *****

Mate, I know we probably all have strong opinions on this subject, but let's try to keep it civil please. It makes for a better debate.

[benchmark00]

So wait, is this allegedly racist guy RH156?

[zaremba]

I'm not sure about racist but he has strong opinions about people with "negro or asian blood" playing for England.

[BoyBrumby]

Must admit, whilst I find it objectionable and wrong-headed, I'd question whether the article is defamatory.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

At least he's English

Ha, played.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Must admit, whilst I find it objectionable and wrong-headed, I'd question whether the article is defamatory.

Yea, I'm not sure why anyone had to sue anyone for it....

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Yea, I'm not sure why anyone had to sue anyone for it....

Because they knew Getty would buy them off and so the lawyers all got excited.....

...wish I'd chosen to specialise in defamation cases rather than chasing around the criminal courts vainly chasing and occasionally, but not as often as I hoped, achieving that elusive thing called justice

I could've retired by now, and taken to spending my whole life maligning the misunderstood, rather than just a few hours here and there

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

spending my whole life maligning the misunderstood, rather than just a few hours here and there

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Must admit, whilst I find it objectionable and wrong-headed, I'd question whether the article is defamatory.

Yep, absolutely. At risk of defending an article more fit for 1795 than 1995, it's ridiculous that anyone got sued over what was merely the publication of an opinion - questionable as that opinion was. I'm with silenstriker on British libel laws as a general rule, but even more so in this case. It's more disturbing than the article content.

I actually find articles like that particularly annoying to add to their distaste, because they muddle an important issue (players playing for their second, third or fourth choice countries who, had they not been involved in international cricket, they'd cheer against) with race. Race and nationality and not tied at the hip, and all stuff like this does is sully the good arguments of folk who don't like the eroding sense of national representation in not only cricket but sport worldwide. The cause of this is the Kruger van Wyks of the world; not the Nasser Hussains.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yep, absolutely. At risk of defending an article more fit for 1795 than 1995, it's ridiculous that anyone got sued over what was merely the publication of an opinion - questionable as that opinion was. I'm with silenstriker on British libel laws as a general rule, but even more so in this case. It's more disturbing than the article content.

I actually find articles like that particularly annoying to add to their distaste, because they muddle an important issue (players playing for their second, third or fourth choice countries who, had they not been involved in international cricket, they'd cheer against) with race. Race and nationality and not tied at the hip, and all stuff like this does is sully the good arguments of folk who don't like the eroding sense of national representation in not only cricket but sport worldwide. The cause of this is the Kruger van Wyks of the world; not the Nasser Hussains.

The law of defamation was an irrelevance really though, other than its mere existence. What actually happened was that the Claimants took advantage of the groundswell of public opinion that set itself against, effectively, a man with very deep pockets.